I remember reading an article which gave a longer version of what those who argue against individuals owning firearms are saying, and it should concern us all. Here is the gist of it.

The founding fathers who wrote the Bill of Rights were landed gentry in a societal framework which has since all but disappeared. Their attitudes were conditioned by their environment, but the environment itself has altered so drastically during the ensuing 200+ years since their time as to be an entirely new environment, one which they could never imagine and did not plan on during the authorship of the Bill of Rights. Therefore the Bill of Rights should be seen as an historical document, but its contents should be adapted to fit our modern era.

Do you see where their argument could take us if it is accepted? It is my observation that those who are most rabid concerning the disarming of the citizenry are in phase one of a multiphase objective. The second amendment is, in their eyes, the weak link in the chain of amendments which our founding fathers saw fit to start this country off with. But if the enemies of this amendment can get it severely amended, if not repealed altogether, I am seriously concerned that the legal arguments they use in order to accomplish this will then be used to attack the other amendments, with the end result being to replace all ten of them with an elitist oligarchical manifesto which will give rights only to a privileged few, while demanding abject subservience from the majority.